Apparently, the author of this piece is not only listening, but had a spin already prepared and ready to go to make a point, and goes to great lengths to take Land's remarks to create his own scenario and make his own point.

Predictably, there is not a single statement in the whole harangue related to the moral responsibility that a woman has in the situation that creates a child in the first place, nor is there a mention of the fact that if there are 11 million children of single mothers, there are 11 million fathers who have abandoned their responsibility to the children they helped to create.

The piece does have some intrinsic value. It is blatant in its advocacy for immoral, and selfish behavior, including abortion and sex outside of marriage. Using it as an attack on Richard Land is absolute confirmation of the reasons for the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, and of the bitterness and resentment that still exists among those who had their little hierarchical oligarchy busted up. If all you've got to stand behind in your attacks on the SBC and its conservative leaders is advocacy for abortion rights and justification of sex outside of marriage, then your argument is pretty pitiful. Beyond that, it is hard to imagine using such an unprofessional, snarling, crudely stated diatribe to sustain an argument against Land's position. It's not the kind of rhetoric that is going to earn respect for, or win, your argument.

Sandy, you assume far too much. First, there is no intended attack, at least on my part, to encourage abortion or to excuse those who are so lacking in a pro-life position that all they are is pro-birth. I did not hear an advocacy for abortion nor for having children out of wedlock. Land, evidently, made a broad sweeping statement about single parenthood that does not differentiate between those who are widowed, divorced, or abandoned in life. There is little to distinguish in his words.

Frankly, I agree that children deserve two parents, but I would want to encourage single parents (which also now include quite a few single fathers who have sole or almost sole responsibility for one or more children). Quite a few grandparents also become father/mother substitutes. Land's problem is making sweeping statements without differentiating circumstances that may have led there. I served three times in military communities where there were a number of the surviving widows of service members who would have turned away from churches on such an attack on their parenting. Those military families would have been deeply angered at such blanket accusations.

Sorry, Sandy, but this has nothing to do with the CR and everything to do with being sensitive to and encouraging the best from families. I think that's a far more Christlike stand.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Did you read the article, Dave? I take it that you did not. The content of most of it has little to do with Land's statement, it was only used as a launching point for a diatribe that had little to do with what Land actually said, or what he meant by it.

It’s amazing how conservative men can claim to know so much about child-rearing when they have made it abundantly clear that they expect women to do all the work. Maybe if Republicans advocated for teaching men to be good partners with the women they have a child with, more kids would have a father in their lives. Unfortunately, conservative men like Richard Land are too busy being sexist assholes, and you can’t expect sexist assholes to teach other men not to be one. In short, these anti-women conservative men are totally unfit to raise children and are totally unqualified to judge single mothers and how they raise theirs.

There's the summary paragraph at the end. Aside from some crude vocabulary used for effect, and which demonstrates a total and complete lack of both writing skill and human intelligence, there's no evidence, support or substantiation which remotely connects his point to Richard Land's statement. He's grinding an axe and depending on the prejudice and ignorance of his readership to jump up and cheer for him at the end. There are issues on which I disagree with Land, and I'll bet I could do a whole lot better job of expressing them in writing than this hack did in this piece of trash.

Nobody said that the writer was "fair and balanced" as in Faux News. The problem is that Land has been a master of the "unbalanced statement." I just can't see how his statement relates to the need for the CR. I read the article totally, and never endorsed what the writer had to say. I tried solely to what Land was reported as saying.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

Thanks for the link, Ed. I knew his original remarks, in context, must be around somewhere, but couldn't find them.

I see absolutely nothing in what he wrote that would be inconsistent with Biblical, Christian teaching, nor that would be offensive, irresponsible, or otherwise could be taken as a slam against women, or against single mothers. What he is referencing is established fact. The vast majority of children living in poverty in the US are in single parent families, and most of those are headed by women. And while many of those are put into the situation because of divorce, many more are born into single parenthood because of irresponsible choices made by their parents. He's pushing for whatever would lead to an increase in adoptions, and he's right. I know that it is extremely difficult for some people to admit that Land, or any other leader of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC is right, but from a Christian perspective, regardless of the theology or theological politics, Land is right.

Adoption alone will not resolve the issues he mentions, largely because it has been turned into a private business and corrupted to protect the high profits in private adoptions, and create long waits in the public adoption system in order to generate business for private agencies. But harangues such as the one posted here to criticize Land, and refusing to accept responsibility for one's own moral behavior are also issues which must be addressed if the problem is to be resolved.

I live in a poverty town, where most of the children are being reared by single moms. We might want to see them as Madonna's bravely tackling a tough job, but the truth in my specific town is that most of them engaged in immoral behavior, many have no idea who the father is and state that with pride, and continue a lifestyle of alcohol, drugs and immorality. Abortion rights activists are livid that in our very liberal state, abortions are not available here without a long trip, so these women often speak of being "forced" to bear the children.

The children are the ones that suffer. And to be honest, many of these moms in my town are also quite open that if the state and federal benefits they draw went away, the children would have been surrendered for adoption at birth.

And while I find Mr. Land quite lacking in tact, the simple truth is that those children WOULD most likely have a better outcome as adults had they been placed at birth with an intact conservative Christian family.

I too would like to see our culture stop rewarding immoral behavior by both men and women, and take steps to both discourage that behavior and provide a better environment for children so conceived.

linda wrote:And while I find Mr. Land quite lacking in tact, the simple truth is that those children WOULD most likely have a better outcome as adults had they been placed at birth with an intact conservative Christian family.

That was my experience. I can't really say what things would have been like for me had I remained with my birth mother, who was single, though she was 23 and worked as a nurse at a hospital emergency room. She had a good job, and thought that the guy who got her pregnant was going to marry her, but she found out, just a couple of months before I was born, that he wasn't who he said he was, and he disappeared. She found him in the state penitentiary a few months later. She kept me for six months before deciding to give me up for adoption, a decision that I know I will always be grateful to her for making. Eventually, she did marry, and had four more kids, but she didn't know where things were headed. I wouldn't have traded my childhood or my family for anything.

About 20 years ago, largely as a result of my experience, my wife and I set out to adopt children. What we discovered was a horrible tangle of regulations and restrictions designed purposefully to push people into private agencies where the cost of an adoption can exceed $30,000, most of which goes in legal fees to attorneys, and to the agency that "brokers" the adoption. Even the church-based agencies were not helpful, very expensive, and offered little in the way of assistance except to provide an application for a "low interest" bank loan to cover their $30,000 fee. The clincher was when we were turned down because the indebtedness created by having to pay the fee put our credit over the line that was required to qualify to adopt.

Sandy, I commend the wisdom of your mother. Nowhere in this discussion, if you note, have I suggested that single parenthood is (or ought to be the norm). I understand exactly your frustration with the adoption system. My wife and I found it difficult to conceive children which we very much wanted. Our son is a biological improbability, according to the specialists we were seeing. We made an early attempt at adoption that ended in frustration with an agency that promised us a child and later admitted they had overpromised, so our whole group that had been meeting and working together with them was denied. (Later we learned that two couples with considerably greater means had received children through them but outside the normal process.)

Reality is many sided. I often see the poverty/welfare cycle of children where I live. It is not a pretty picture, but pronouncements on single mothers giving up their children are not going to help. I have several years invested in a teenage pregnancy prevention organization, and I am also supportive of private educational efforts to reach into these communities and promote the benefits of marriage. Change is going to require mentoring relationships to help single-parents and potential single parents make better decisions. Also, there needs to be a move away from churches treating single parents as lepers who had a child as a punishment from God for their sexual activity outside marriage (which I heard from a fundamentalist pastor). If Land wants to make a difference, organize the WMU into mentoring relationships with single mothers, don't just condemn them an extra time.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

The Director of Social Services here shared today that last year 60% of all births in our county were to unmarried parents. This is not a woman's problem so much as it is a man's problem in that there is a popular myth among young men that they are not really men until they have fathered a child. There is a desperate need for mature men who will mentor these young men to adopt a different model and to take responsibility for the children they conceive. When they get by unidentified as biological parents, then they avoid the financial responsibilities they should assume for the children they conceive. There should be no free passes for young men who father children. Land also needs to address the men involved, not just the women who are left with the child. Some of them remain the legal roadblock to adoption as well in that they will not renounce their parental rights under the law, even if the mother would give up the child.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

It's a very complicated issue, and I would suggest that intact, loving, supportive families are more critically needed than intact conservative Christian ones. Many intact conservative Christian-family couples could be more loving and supportive than they are, and their own kids, biological or adopted, would benefit thereby.

Haruo wrote:It's a very complicated issue, and I would suggest that intact, loving, supportive families are more critically needed than intact conservative Christian ones. Many intact conservative Christian-family couples could be more loving and supportive than they are, and their own kids, biological or adopted, would benefit thereby.

Ed: So Haruo where you say "Many intact conservative Christian-family couples could be more loving and supportive than they are, and their own kids, biological or adopted, would benefit thereby." Can not the same be said of intact Fundamentalist, Moderate or liberal Christian homes".

In Fact I caution against the adjective "intact". During my years of involvement in singles ministries I saw some great single parent families go to pot when the parent married and to all outward appearances created an intact [ 2 parents plus X# kids] Christian family.

Haruo wrote:It's a very complicated issue, and I would suggest that intact, loving, supportive families are more critically needed than intact conservative Christian ones. Many intact conservative Christian-family couples could be more loving and supportive than they are, and their own kids, biological or adopted, would benefit thereby.

Ed: So Haruo where you say "Many intact conservative Christian-family couples could be more loving and supportive than they are, and their own kids, biological or adopted, would benefit thereby." Can not the same be said of intact Fundamentalist, Moderate or liberal Christian homes".

In Fact I caution against the adjective "intact". During my years of involvement in singles ministries I saw some great single parent families go to pot when the parent married and to all outward appearances created an intact [ 2 parents plus X# kids] Christian family.

I don't disagree with you at all here, Ed. I just used the phrase linda used (which was at least close to what Land was saying) when she wrote "And while I find Mr. Land quite lacking in tact, the simple truth is that those children WOULD most likely have a better outcome as adults had they been placed at birth with an intact conservative Christian family."

Dave Roberts wrote:The Director of Social Services here shared today that last year 60% of all births in our county were to unmarried parents. This is not a woman's problem so much as it is a man's problem in that there is a popular myth among young men that they are not really men until they have fathered a child. There is a desperate need for mature men who will mentor these young men to adopt a different model and to take responsibility for the children they conceive. When they get by unidentified as biological parents, then they avoid the financial responsibilities they should assume for the children they conceive. There should be no free passes for young men who father children. Land also needs to address the men involved, not just the women who are left with the child. Some of them remain the legal roadblock to adoption as well in that they will not renounce their parental rights under the law, even if the mother would give up the child.

I agree, though I have, sadly, seen some cases where the mother wasn't really sure who the father actually was until a DNA test was done. It takes two people to create a child, and both should be responsible for their behavior in doing it. When I taught in the alternative high school in Houston a number of years ago, there were young men there who were 17, 18, 19 years old, who had fathered children with three or four different mothers.

I'm afraid, Sandy, you have identified the sad reality of bad decisions for a lot of young people. Some of these children have grandparents and other relatives who become the family they are lacking, but many do not. DNA testing only works where you have the DNA of the potential father on file. Here, that usually means if it is on file, the father is already a convicted felon.

"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)